Who was The Little Dancer in Edgar Degas’ Famous Painting?

During the years that Impressionism was at the forefront of Parisian artistic expression, Edgar Degas’ work was amongst the best known. He was famous for painting scenes of the ballet, and could frequently be found backstage after performances or watching rehearsals at the Paris Opera, where many young girls went to train in the hopes of becoming revered dancers. Degas was also a sculptor and his famous statue, ‘The Little Fourteen-Year-Old Dancer,’ is known the world over, yet unlike its creator, little is known about the model behind it.

Here, Erin Bienvenu looks at the life of the ‘little dancer’, Marie Geneviève van Goethem.

The Little Fourteen-Year-Old Dancer by Edgar Degas. Source: H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929. Available here.

Her name was Marie Geneviève van Goethem and she was born to Belgian parents in Paris on June 7, 1865. Marie had two sisters, the older Antionette and younger Louise-Joséphine. Their mother was a laundress, and their father a tailor, though he disappeared early from his daughters’ lives. Consequently, the van Goethem’s were poor and moved frequently to avoid their debts.

Dancer at the Paris Opera

Desperate for money, Marie’s mother pushed her daughters to become dancers at the Paris Opera, at the time a way many families with young girls earned extra money. But it was a difficult life, the girls, known as ‘Little Rats’ earned little and worked around twelve hours a day, six days a week. Marie walked to and from her classes, her feet often bleeding from the intensive sessions, compounded by the poor nutritional value of the food she ate at home, and the fact that the van Goethem’s did not have running water in their house.

As money was a constant concern for many, the opera also operated a secondary, unofficial trade, which revealed a much darker side to the façade of beautiful dancers- prostitution. Backstage, after performances, the dancers were encouraged to find wealthy male ‘protectors’-their mothers often aiding and encouraging these introductions. Marie’s mother was soon offering up her daughters to these rich, usually older, men. 

Marie and her younger sister were accepted into the school around 1878, at which stage Antionette was already attending classes. Marie made her stage debut, a walk on part, in the ballet La Korrigane, but she never progressed through the levels of the ballet, throughout her time there she remained in the lowest rank.

Model for Degas

To earn some extra income Antionette was also posing for artists, including Edgar Degas, already well known as a painter of ballerinas and it was probably through her sister that Marie met the artist. Soon she was posing for him as well, earning more money than she did at the Paris Opera (four francs as opposed to the two earned from the ballet), and in a less taxing environment. She lived close to his studio and would have walked there for the sessions. Though it was easier work than the ballet sometimes Marie would have to stand for hours in one pose, not moving a muscle. Neither Degas, nor Marie, left any written record of their working relationship, but he did use her as a model for numerous artworks, both paintings and sculptures, the most famous being the ‘Little Dancer.’

‘Little Dancer’ Exhibited

The wax sculpture was dressed in a real tutu, bodice and ballet slippers, and had a wig of real hair, it was exhibited at the Sixth Impressionist Exhibition in 1881. The first and only time Degas put it on public display. It caused a certain amount of controversy. For many it was too lifelike and was criticised for being ugly. One critic described it as displaying “the lowest depths of dance” and another accused it of “bad instincts and vicious tendencies.”

Wax was an unusual choice in sculpture at the time as was Degas decision to dress his piece in real clothes, and display it in a glass case-these unusual aspects added fuel to the critic’s fire. Though at least one believed it to be “the only really modern attempt that I know of in sculpture.”

The reactions to the piece displayed a shocking amount of classism, particularly prominent at the time owing to the popular idea of physiognomy as applied to criminals- the belief that criminals bore similar features, such as large noses and jaws, and were generally believed to be of the lower classes. The idea had recently been in the news thanks to a murder case involving three young men, who were described as ‘bestial,’ a word also applied to the Little Dancer. Similarly, the fact that in Paris dance and prostitution were seen as synonymous led many to believe a ballerina was unworthy of being celebrated in such a way.  In many respects Degas statue was simply too revolutionary for the time.

Later Life

As for Marie, she had begun missing classes at the ballet, and was fined for her absences. It’s not known if she knew about the furore the statue caused, and if she did, how it would have made her feel. She was often seen in the Montmartre Cafés and cabarets, many of which were open all night. They were popular with the bohemian and artistic sets, but were unsuitable for a young girl. Eventually she was dismissed from the ballet for missing too many classes.

The last recorded sighting of Marie comes in 1882, the same year as her dismissal from the opera. Her sister, Antionette had stolen seven hundred francs from a ‘client’ and was attempting to flee to Belgium. She was found waiting at a train station with her mother and Marie, and was arrested. Antionette was sentenced to three months in prison, but afterwards lived a quiet life, passing away at the age of thirty-seven. The youngest of the van Goethem girls, Louise-Joséphine, had a long career at the ballet, becoming an instructor there and passing away in 1945.

Following his death Degas sculpture of Marie was cast in bronze and replicated, it also gained a new appreciation from critics and the general public alike. The Little Dancer can be found in galleries around the world and is much loved.

Marie, however, disappeared from the historical record following her sister’s arrest. Her subsequent life and fate remain unknown. She remains a mystery, a young woman forever immortalised as a fourteen-year-old dancer.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://mediatheque.cnd.fr/?Van-Goethem-Charlotte,213

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/degas-and-his-dancers-79455990/

Laurens, Camille (2018), Little Dancer Aged Fourteen: The True Story Behind Degas’s Masterpiece. New York: Other Press

Loyrette, Henri (2016), Degas: A New Vision. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria

What were the Most Daring Missions of World War 2’s X-class Miniature Submarines?

During the Second World War a remarkable but often overlooked group of submarines played a crucial role in various operations, including the preparation for the D-Day invasion. These submarines, known as X-Craft, were small, specially designed vessels tasked with daring missions that often carried immense risk. Terry Bailey explains.

An X-Craft 25 in Scotland during World War 2.

The theatre of the Second World War, where naval supremacy often dictated the outcome of battles required innovation that became the key to success. Among the many remarkable developments of the era were the X-craft miniature submarines which stood out for the audacity, effectiveness and bravery of the crews who manned these vessels. The small but mighty vessels played a crucial role in some of the war's most daring and important missions, proving that size was no obstacle to bravery or impact.

The genesis of the X-Craft can trace its pedigree back to the CSS H. L. Hunley, the small Confederate States of America submarine that played a small part in the American Civil War. The Hunley’s mission profile, like the British X-craft of the Second World War was to close with the enemy vessel and deliver an explosive device next to or near the hull of the target vessel then retired from the area.

In the Second World War, the Allied forces faced the daunting task of neutralizing the formidable German battleship Tirpitz. Anchored in the remote fjords of Norway, the Tirpitz posed a significant threat to Allied convoys and naval operations in the North Atlantic. Traditional methods of attack, such as aerial bombing, had proven ineffective against the ship's heavily fortified defenses on the vessel and in the water including surrounding hills.

In response to this challenge, British naval engineers embarked on a daring experiment: the development of miniature submarines capable of infiltrating enemy harbors that could deliver a devastating blow to high-value targets. The result was the X-Craft, a revolutionary vessel measuring just 51 feet in length manned by a crew of four.

Operation Source

The X-Craft's first major mission came in September 1943, with Operation Source—the audacious plan to attack the Tirpitz in its heavily defended anchorage at Altenfjord, Norway.

Although a larger number of X-craft were assigned to Operation Source, however, only six eventually took part the mission, due to a number of unforeseen problems. Each craft was tasked with navigating treacherous waters and evading enemy patrols to reach their target after slipping from the mother submarine that towed the X-craft across the North Sea.

The journey itself was a testament to the courage and skill of the X-Craft crews, who endured cramped conditions and the constant threat of detection as they navigated through hostile waters. Despite facing numerous challenges, including mechanical failures and adverse weather conditions, two X-Craft, named X6 and X7, successfully reached their target and deposited their side charges under the Tirpitz, there is some evidence that indicates that X5 also managed laid their charges.

Although the attack failed to sink the battleship outright, it dealt a significant blow to the ship’s operational capabilities, forcing the Germans to withdraw the Tirpitz from active duty for repairs, providing the Allies precious time. The success of Operation Source demonstrated the potential of the X-Craft as a strategic weapon and paved the way for future missions.

Operation Guidance

Encouraged by the relative success of Operation Source, the X-Craft were subsequently deployed on a series of daring missions throughout the remainder of the war, including Operation Guidance.

In April 1944, Submarines X20 up-to and including X25 were dispatched to Bergen, Norway, as part of Operation Guidance. X24, under the command of a brave crew, attacked the Laksevåg floating dock. Originally, X22 was intended for this mission. However, tragically, it had been accidentally rammed during training and sunk, resulting in the loss of all hands.

Undeterred, X24 proceeded with the mission, although the charges were initially placed under the merchant vessel Bärenfels, causing its sinking, the dock itself sustained only minor damage. Determined to succeed, X24 repeated the operation in September, this time successfully sinking the dock.

Operation Postage able

Additionally, the X-Craft submarines were instrumental in the preparatory work for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. One notable operation, Postage Able, involved X20, commanded by Lieutenant KR Hudspeth.

Spending four days off the French coast, X20 conducted periscope reconnaissance of the shoreline and echo-soundings during the day. Each night, two divers would swim ashore to survey the landing beaches, collecting samples for analysis.

Despite challenges such as fatigue and adverse weather conditions, the operation provided vital intelligence for the upcoming invasion. Lieutenant Hudspeth's leadership during this mission earned him a bar to his Distinguished Service Cross.

Operation Gambit

As part of Operation Gambit, X20 and X23, each manned by a crew of five, acted as navigational beacons to guide the D-Day invasion fleet to the correct beaches. Equipped with radio beacons and echo sounders, these submarines played a crucial role in directing Canadian and British ships to suitable positions on Sword and Juno beaches. The use of oxygen bottles enabled the crews to remain submerged for extended periods, contributing significantly to the success of the operation.

XE class submarines and Far East operations

In August 1945, the new improved XE class miniature submarines were deployed in a daring attack on Japanese warships within Singapore harbor. The mission was meticulously planned, with XE3 assigned to attack the heavy cruiser Takao, while XE1 targeting the heavy cruiser Myōkō.

XE3's journey was fraught with challenges, navigating through the Straits of Johor and evading harbor defenses. It took a total of 11 hours to reach the target area, with an additional 2 hours spent locating the camouflaged Takao. Despite the constant threat of detection by Japanese,  XE3 successfully reached the Takao, deploying limpet mines and dropping two side charges. The withdrawal was executed flawlessly, and XE3 safely returned to HMS Stygian, its towing submarine.

Meanwhile, XE1 encountered delays caused by Japanese patrol craft. Realizing that reaching Myōkō before the explosives laid by XE3 detonated was impossible, the captain made the strategic decision to target the already attacked Takao. Like XE3, XE1 successfully returned to its towing submarine, HMS Spark.

The impact of the attack was profound, the Takao, already in a damaged state, sustained severe damage and was rendered unfit for further use. For their extraordinary bravery and skill, the commanders and crews of both XE1 and XE3 were honored with prestigious awards. Lieutenant Ian Edward Fraser RNR and Leading Seaman James Joseph Magennis of XE3 were awarded the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest military decoration for valor.

Sub-Lieutenant William James Lanyon Smith, RNZNVR, received the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for his role in commanding XE3. Engine Room Artificer Third Class Charles Alfred Reed, who operated the vessel's controls, was recognized with the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (CGM).

In recognition of their contributions, Lieutenant John Elliott Smart RNVR and Sub-Lieutenant Harold Edwin Harper, RNVR, commanding officer and crew of XE1 respectively, were awarded the DSO and the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).

Additionally, ERA Fourth Class Henry James Fishleigh, Leading Seaman Walter Henry Arthur Pomeroy, ERA Fourth Class Albert Nairn, Acting Leading Stoker Jack Gordan Robinson, and Able Seaman Ernest Raymond Dee were all honored for their roles in bringing the midget submarines to the point of attack, receiving various commendations and mentions in dispatches.

Legacy

The X-Craft missions during World War II may have been overshadowed by larger naval engagements, but their impact was profound. These small submarines played a vital role in disrupting enemy operations and weakening Axis forces.

The impact on the outcome of the Second World War is often underestimated, yet should not be dismissed, these diminutive submarines played a crucial role in neutralizing some of the most formidable naval threats of the era, demonstrating the effectiveness of unconventional warfare tactics in an increasingly complex battlefield environment.

Moreover, the legacy of the X-Craft extends far beyond their wartime exploits. The technological innovations pioneered in the development of these vessels laid the groundwork for future advancements in submarine design and underwater warfare.

The lessons learned from their operations continue to form military strategy and tactics to this day, serving as a testament to the enduring legacy of innovation and ingenuity in times of conflict. Moreover, their daring exploits served as an inspiration for today’s generation of naval special forces.

Therefore, it should be clear that the X-Craft miniature submarines represent a remarkable chapter in the history naval warfare. From their humble origins to Second World War experimental prototypes and their pivotal role in some of the most daring missions of the Second World War, these small but mighty vessels exemplify the courage, tenacity, and ingenuity of the men who manned them. Their story serves as a powerful reminder of the indomitable spirit of those who dare to defy the odds in the pursuit of victory.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

This Godless Communism: Cold War as Religious Ideological Struggle

The Cold War pitted the USA against the USSR in all manner of ways – and a key part of that was a religious, Christian America against an atheist Soviet Union. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the Cold War as a religious ideological struggle.

The 1931 demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.

On September 19, 1965 an episode of the popular science fiction show Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" called "Jonah and the Whale" was broadcast. In it a Russian scientist teamed up with the Seaview to repair a damaged deep sea station. In the process, the American Admiral Nelson and the Russian end up swallowed by a giant whale while attempting to reach the station. While awaiting rescue, their unusual circumstances led to a discussion of the Biblical account of Jonah and the Whale. The Russian scoffs at the story, dismissing it as “myth.” The American, by contrast, defends the account as reliable. Additionally, throughout the episode a running conflict takes place between the Americans and Russian over the value of life. The Russian Dr Markova persistently places the mission objectives above the safety of crew members and displays a callous disregard for human life. The Americans display the opposite.

This episode was typical of American perceptions of the nature of our Cold War enemy: Soviet Russia. American pop culture often delivered pointed reminders to the American people that we were dealing with an enemy that was cold-hearted, ruthless and above all, godless. In fact, Russian or Slavic villains became staple in cinema and TV as soon as the Cold War “heated up” beginning in the late 1940s. The godless communist narrative became pervasive in the years that followed. The Jonah episode also reflected long-standing American values and self-perception as champions of goodness and virtue, a fundamental aspect of which is respect for traditional religion.

Traditional religion

The conflict between communist statism and Western values of freedom was often seen as reflecting the spiritual and moral truths grounded in traditional religion.

Individual and economic freedom was seen to be based on religious ethics - God -given rights that no government could take away. Communist hostility and threats toward this freedom and religion was a continuous theme in the very anticommunist media of the day.

Popular culture joined in the fight long before the Jonah episode. This was largely the result of an organization keenly feeling the threat of “godless communism; the Catholic Catechetical Guild Educational Society. In 1947 they published a 50-page political pamphlet/comic book warning of the threat faced by all Americans: the ruthless scheming of our own home-grown American Communist Party. The comic book title warned: Is This Tomorrow? The book described a hypothetical future communist coup d’état in America. Its lurid descriptions and imagery  was designed to shock the reader into alarm over how the communists would take power aided by an ill-informed American public. Assisting the communists were a number of gullible “useful idiots” including well-meaning but misguided American officials. One is a Bible-burning politician. The Catholic Educational Society made the point that those who burn or oppose the Bible and Christianity are terrible people, that the communists target not just a political or economic ideology but are the enemy of everything decent and good. In the comic, clergy of all variety suffer severe persecution.  At the back of the book readers could find the “Ten Commandments of Citizenship.” One of these was “Follow your own religion.” Religion is encouraged as an important aspect of citizenship. A best-seller, about 4 million copies were printed and distributed to churches throughout the country. Is this Tomorrow? was not the only attempt to clarify the spiritual struggle. Treasure Chest, a comic book distributed to private, religious schools, contained a regular feature entitled "This Godless Communism."

Deeply embedded values

Although featuring a hysterical tone, these publications reflected values deeply embedded in American culture. Our religious ideology was not forced on our people. The phrase "under God" was not added to the pledge of Allegiance until 1954, but this does not mean that public education was void of any religious sentiment prior to that time. 

Long tradition promoted  decorating the walls of many elementary classrooms with some kind of acknowledgement or faith in God. One such example was a class chalkboard accidentally uncovered by construction crews at an Oklahoma High School in 2015. The crew discovered a chalkboard full of lessons, perfectly preserved, as they were written in 1917. One section of the chalkboard is dedicated to an encouragement to patriotism which reads "I give my head, my heart, and my life to my God and our nation indivisible with Justice for all." A generation later this tradition continued. In a 2nd grade classroom in New Jersey in 1949, the following display was featured next to the classroom entrance; a prominent place where all could see;

A Child’s Grace

Thank you for the world so sweet

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the birds that sing

Thank you God for everything

Additionally, in classrooms across the nation could be heard the refrains of America’s national songs, laced with references to God and Scripture; America, America, God shed His grace on Thee, for instance. Building on this tradition and faced with a mortal challenge from atheistic Marxism, 1950s America underwent a significant spiritual revival in which values were frequently reflected In popular film as well.

For example, in 1951 the film My Son John hit theaters across America sending Cold War shivers down the spines of theater goers. The antagonist, John, comes home after living abroad for a while. His parents & others in the community soon notice his strange behavior. Among other “un-American” behaviors are his strange refusal to attend church with the family. Eventually, it comes out that while abroad he converted to communism.

At roughly the same time the popular television show "Life is worth Living" featured the eloquent Bishop Fulton Sheen. His Excellency dedicated episodes of the TV program to the topic of communism. To an audience of millions the charismatic Bishop articulated a devastating critique of Marxist ideology. He concluded with a thundering denunciation of it as a soulless and deadly threat to civilization.

Leaders

America’s political leaders were also not shy about invoking their nation's spiritual superiority. Congressman Charles J. Kersten believed it was “immoral and unchristian to negotiate a permanent agreement with forces (communism) which by every religious creed and moral precept are evil.”

Kersten was by no means the only public official emphasizing the spiritual and moral aspect of the conflict. In a speech that marked the beginning of “McCarthyism” delivered on February 9, 1950, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy voiced the shocking claim that recent communist gains, such as the “loss” of China to the Reds, could be explained by traitors within the State Department. McCarthy made sure to explain WHY this was such a problem. The nature of communism, he declared, is “not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies. The great difference between our Western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, it is moral.” 

This championing of Christian values in the face of the world-wide enemy of religion went all the up to the White House. On July 30, 1954 President Eisenhower addressed the nation on the subject of religion; "... we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”    

The occasion was the passing of Public Law 84-140, concerning “inscriptions on currency and coins.” The law declared that “all United States currency shall bear the inscription "In God We Trust." Soon everyday business transactions would remind millions of Americans of the important place of religion in America. 

What would move the President to deliver an address on such a mundane topic as coin inscriptions - Dwight Eisenhower was not particularly known for his religiosity. In his own words he had "gotten a long way" from his religious upbringing.  But that was soon to change. Even earlier, in 1953, he had reached out to a young, up-and -coming evangelist named Billy Graham. He had met the revivalist on a number of occasions. The two formed a bond that would last to the end of Eisenhower's life.

Besides Graham, other eloquent preachers influenced the President.    On February 2, 1954 Eisenhower attended a service at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington DC. The sermon by Reverend George Doherty would prove to be very influential on the President. Doherty declared; "To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life,” He further argued that “an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms,” … “you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life.”

In 1952 the Knights of Columbus began petitioning the government that there should be some reference to God in the Pledge recited in classrooms across the country. Specifically, they wanted the words “under God” added. They found a sympathetic ear in Louis Rabaut, Democratic Representative from Michigan. Rabaut was a fervent Catholic with nine children. The Knights movement caught his attention. He introduced a bill on the floor of congress stating that the reference to God was needed to "as a public proclamation of our religious traditions" and a "Bulwark against communism." Rabaut also declared what a majority of Americans believed when he said “Love of country is a devotion to an institution that finds its origin and development in the moral law …Our country was born under God and only under God will it live as a citadel of freedom.”  “To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life.”

Eisenhower’s backing

When Eisenhower's own pastor championed the cause, Ike threw in his support as well. 

He believed he had a good reason. He had seen first-hand the horrors of totalitarianism as he went into the liberated Nazi death camps in 1945. The Cold War, then raging fiercely, challenged the leader of the free world not only militarily and economically but morally and spiritually as well and Eisenhower was determined to bolster American ability to withstand it.

Besides money, On April 8, 1954 postage stamps appeared for the first time with the words "In God we trust." In the biggest ceremony of its kind in the history of the United States Post Office Department, attended by the highest officials in the country, including President Eisenhower, the stamp was inaugurated with the words. "It will set the stage . . . for the introduction of the nation’s first regular stamp bearing a religious significance.”

In the following year, 1955, American elementary school children recited the Pledge of Allegiance with the new words “Under God" added to the pledge. During the Cold War many organizations eagerly joined in the crusade of defending  religion against the forces of communism. John Swift Knights of Columbus began to petition the government to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.

On Flag Day of the same year, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill that added the phrase to the pledge schoolchildren recited every morning. The original pledge, written in 1892, had contained no reference to religion. To emphasize the point still further, in 1956 the official motto of the United States became "In God We Trust." 

In 1958 Christianity Today Magazine reported on the low reputation of communists; “The word “communism” suggests all manner of evil. You need but whisper, “He is a Communist,” and, if your neighbor believes you, the alleged Communist could next be charged with almost any crime whatever and your neighbor would not be surprised. The Communist has the role of international villain once held by the Fascist, except that the Communist enjoys an even worse reputation. He would rob his own brother blind; he would betray his own parents to the police; he would delight in desecrating churches, for he is an atheist.”           

How close was this media narrative to reality? The portrayal of Russians as cold-hearted, inhumane and anti-religious were not simply empty platitudes of pop culture. Just before the Jonah episode, the Soviet Union, although not officially atheist, had conducted the “anti-religious campaign” (1958-1964). Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was very hostile towards religion. During his leadership the number of churches declined from 22,000 to 7,873. In his speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khrushchev made sure anti-religious propaganda was promoted. June, 1963.

By contrast, at this same time in the Soviet Union and Red China religion suffered from often harsh persecution. Sometimes the anti-religious propaganda and measures rose to the level of the anti-Jewish policies of Nazi Germany. The Soviet National anthem ignores religion and attributes the existence of the nation to “the people's mighty hand.” Events known as “youth anti-religious evenings” were held which included dramatizations and songs characterized as “humorous, show how priests, fortune-tellers and other rogues deceive believers with imperishable relics, holy tales and other rubbish.”

Such policies made it clear to Americans that it was necessary to face down this darkness with even more powerful forces of moral and spiritual strength.  In the 1950s and even into the 1960s the American nation was in a mood to embrace and safeguard its historic spiritual heritage, including government action promoting religion - such as on postage stamps, unfettered by constitutional qualms.

In context

This battle continued up to the end of the Cold War. Ultimately, the Soviet colossus collapsed. The Democratic, free market system was proclaimed the Victor. The Soviet Empire has been replaced by a fragmented shadow of its former self. This does not mean, though, that Russia no longer has dangerous ambitions and only time will tell what role religion will play in any future confrontation.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/10/religion-christianity

How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival |

How Dwight Eisenhower Found God in the White House | HISTORY

The Battle of Gettysburg - Part 4: Culp’s Hill, Cemetery Hill, and East Cavalry Field

Culp's Hill is a frequently overlooked area of the Gettysburg battle and played a crucial role in the Union's victory. Situated about three-quarters of a mile south of Gettysburg, it formed the tip of a fishhook-shaped series of hills and ridges that made up the Union lines. The significance of Culp's Hill lay in its strategic location. It guarded the main Union supply line on the Baltimore Pike and protected the rear and right flank of the Union army positioned on Cemetery Ridge.

Here, Lloyd W Klein explains what happened at Culp’s Hill, Cemetery Hill, and East Cavalry Field.

If you missed it, part 1 on General Lee’s advance to Pennsylvania is here, part 2 on day 1 of the battle is here, and part 3 on day 2 of the battle is here.

Scene behind the breastworks on Culp’s Hill, morning of July 3rd 1863. By Edwin Forbes.

Cemetery and Culp’s Hills

The configuration of the Union lines, with Cemetery Hill at its center, provided a strong defensive position known as the "fishhook." This layout allowed the Union forces to benefit from interior lines, making it easier to reinforce and support different sections of the line. Cemetery Hill, situated behind the town, offered a natural defense as attacks could not be launched directly from the streets. To reach Cemetery Hill, attackers had to either capture Culp's Hill on the East or the northern section of Cemetery Ridge on the west. General Lee's strategy relied on attacking the flanks, while the Union's strategy focused on defending these hills to protect the center.

Culp's Hill itself consists of two distinct peaks, an upper hill and a lower hill, separated by a narrow saddle. The higher peak, densely covered in trees, rises to an elevation of 630 feet above sea level, while the lower peak is approximately 100 feet shorter. The eastern slope of Culp's Hill descends towards Rock Creek, while the western slope leads to a saddle with Stevens Knoll. This topography provided natural advantages for defenders, making it challenging for attackers to gain a foothold on the hill.

July 1st

Following the retreat of the Union lines on Seminary Ridge and north of the town, the troops of XI Corps regrouped at Cemetery Hill, where a 2000-man brigade and a battery of 6 guns were positioned to safeguard the withdrawal. Meanwhile, Wadsworth’s division hurried to Culp’s Hill to protect the right flank, and additional reinforcements were on their way. By 4:30 p.m., 500 troops from the 7th Indiana and Maj. Gen. Henry Slocum’s XII Corps had arrived, with Brig. Gen. Thomas Ruger’s 1st Division taking up position behind Cemetery Hill. Brigadier General John W. Geary’s 2nd Division reached Gettysburg at 5 pm, adding 8,000 fresh troops to the Union forces, bringing their total strength to around 20,000 soldiers combined with the XI Corps. The Federals, in addition to the reinforcements, had managed to salvage most of their artillery pieces during the retreat, with almost 40 guns joining Smith’s six guns atop Cemetery Hill.

Ewell's missed opportunity to seize Culp's Hill/Cemetery Hill on the evening of July 1 is often regarded as a critical moment in the battle. When Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's third division arrived, he was instructed to take the hill if it was not already occupied. However, Johnson hesitated and decided against the attack, sending a small party to scout the area. This party encountered the 7th Indiana Infantry of the I Corps, leading to a skirmish that forced them to retreat. By 7 pm, Culp's Hill was well-defended, with the Iron Brigade and other units in position, making it a challenging target for the Confederates.

Pfanz concluded that Ewell had made the best decision, citing the failed probing attack at 7 pm at dusk, but was it as prepared at 5 pm? It was less well-defended; still, who would Ewell have attacked with? After the war, General Gordon wrote in his memoirs that he was ready, but his men had seen significant action.  Gordon’s brigades were scattered and 2 miles from where an attack could be made. Moreover, the 11th Corps troops on Cemetery Hill under Howard were well positioned to defend Culp’s hill, more so than Ewell was positioned to take it.

Ewell did consider taking Culp's Hill, which would have made the Union position on Cemetery Hill untenable Given the discretionary and inherently contradictory order he received from General Lee, General Ewell chose not to attempt the assault. The three main reasons most often given include: 1) the battle fatigue of his men in the late afternoon, as his men had marched a great distance and were exhausted 2) the difficulty of assaulting the hill through the narrow corridors afforded by the streets of Gettysburg immediately to the north, and 3) that after the battle at Barlow’s Knoll and the attacks through the town, there had been enough casualties and mixing of lines to severely weaken command and control. He might also have realized that although he might have been able to take Culps Hill, he couldn’t hold it with a single division after a counterattack from East Cemetery Hill.

And surely that would require a general engagement. It’s possible that Ewell may have felt that it was practicable to take the hill, but did not see how he could do so without bringing on a general engagement. He only had 1 division on hand, it was getting dark, and he wasn't going to receive any backup in any attack. He wanted support and none was available.. However, Jubal Early opposed the idea when it was reported that Union troops (probably Slocum's XII Corps) were approaching the York Pike, and he sent the brigades of John B. Gordon and Brig. Gen. William "Extra Billy" Smith to block that perceived threat.  "Allegheny" Johnson's division of Ewell's Corps was within an hour of arriving on the battlefield and Early urged waiting for Johnson's division to take the hill. After Johnson's division arrived via the Chambersburg Pike, it maneuvered toward the east of town in preparation to take the hill, but a small reconnaissance party sent in advance encountered a picket line of the 7th Indiana Infantry, which opened fire and captured a Confederate officer and soldier. The remainder of the Confederates fled and attempts to seize Culp's Hill on July 1 came to an end.

Although Ewell has been blamed for not aggressively pursuing the Union line on Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill, which left the Union on high ground, most military authorities and historians who have looked into the matter have pretty routinely concluded that Culp's Hill would not have been easy to capture on July 1st. Some historians say that it's 20/20 hindsight that Ewell could have easily pushed the Union line from the high ground; others say he was too timid. Stephen W. Sears has suggested that Gen. Meade would have invoked his original plan for a defensive line on Pipe Creek and withdrawn the Army of the Potomac, although that movement would have been a dangerous operation under pressure from Lee.

But, a real conundrum exists in whether or not Lee and Ewell were talking about the same hill. Lee was on Seminary Ridge and may have been looking at East Cemetery Hill while Ewell was at the base of Culp’s Hill. It’s unclear whether Lee & Ewell had a map that showed this.

Lost Cause Reinterpretation? Although the “If practicable order” story is a central part of Gettysburg lore, appearing in many books about the Civil War — it is also greatly negative against Ewell, and perhaps purposely so. The story may have been concocted by Lee’s apologists in a postwar attempt to shift the blame for losing the battle from their hero onto Ewell. In truth, Lee sent no definitive orders directing Ewell to pursue the enemy when the Union lines broke in front of the town, and Ewell was not benumbed by indecision when he defeated them in the town and on Barlow’s Knoll.

It was not until after the war, and Lee’s death, that Lost Cause supporters sought to explain how the infallible general was defeated at Gettysburg. Confederate veterans like John B. Gordon, Isaac Trimble, and Randolph H. McKim insinuated in their postwar writings that it was Ewell’s timidity that had cost Lee the victory. Postwar proponents of the Lost Cause movement, assigned to Ewell's staff during the battle, criticized him bitterly to deflect any blame for losing the battle on Robert E. Lee. Part of their argument was that the Federal soldiers were demoralized by their defeat earlier in the day. McKim’s 1915 article in The Southern Historical Society Papers stated. “Here then we find still another of General Lee’s lieutenants, the gallant and usually energetic Ewell, failing at a critical moment to recognize what ought to be done,” he wrote. “Had the advance on Cemetery Hill been pushed forward promptly that afternoon we now know beyond any possible question that the hill was feebly occupied and could have been easily taken, and Meade would have been forced to retreat.”

Walter H. Taylor, Lee’s former aide, also sided with the anti-Ewell faction in his memoir “Four Years With General Lee.” Taylor wrote that Ewell voiced no objection to the order he brought from Lee to take the high ground “if possible,” and that he returned to Lee under the impression Ewell would attack.

But there is another side to the story. Maj. Campbell Brown, Ewell’s stepson, and aide, observed that the “discovery that this lost us the battle is one of those frequently-recurring but tardy strokes of military genius of which one hears long after the minute circumstances that rendered them at the time impracticable, are forgotten.” And while Taylor’s story became an important part of the controversy, Brown was adamant that he never brought such orders. In an 1885 letter to Gen. Henry Jackson Hunt, the former chief of artillery for the Army of the Potomac, Brown wrote, “I say broadly that Col. Taylor’s account of this battle is utterly worthless — that he carried no such order to Gen. Ewell ... I do not impugn his veracity but his memory has been trusted and has deceived him.”

Major General Isaac Trimble, who was attached on special duty to Ewell’s command during the battle, was among those who tried to dismiss Lee’s warning. Writing for the Southern Historical Society (SHS) years after both Lee and Ewell had died, Trimble recalled his attempt to persuade Ewell to attack:

“The battle was over and we had won it handsomely. General Ewell moved about uneasily, a good deal excited, and seemed to me to be undecided about what to do next. I approached him and said: "Well, General, we have had a grand success; are you not going to follow it up and push our advantage?"

He replied that General Lee had instructed him not to bring on a general engagement without orders and that he would wait for them.

I said, "That hardly applies to the present state of things, as we have fought a hard battle already, and should secure the advantage gained". He made no rejoinder but was far from composure. I was deeply impressed with the conviction that it was a critical moment for us and made a remark to that effect.

As no movement seemed immediate, I rode off to our left, north of the town, to reconnoiter, and noticed conspicuously the wooded hill northeast of Gettysburg (Culp's), and a half mile distant, and of an elevation to command the country for miles each way, and overlooking Cemetery Hill above the town. Returning to see General Ewell, who was still under much embarrassment, I said, "General, There," pointing to Culp's Hill, "is an eminence of commanding position, and not now occupied, as it ought to be by us or the enemy soon. I advise you to send a brigade and hold it if we are to remain here." He said: "Are you sure it commands the town?" [I replied,] "Certainly it does, as you can see, and it ought to be held by us at once." General Ewell made some impatient reply, and the conversation dropped.”

— Isaac R. Trimble, "The Battle and Campaign of Gettysburg." Southern Historical Society Papers 26 (1898).

Observers at the scene later reported that the "impatient reply" was, "When I need advice from a junior officer I generally ask for it." They also stated that Trimble threw down his sword in disgust and stormed off.

Did this happen as it is stated? No one knows. Trimble was certainly upset that he was without a command on July 1. He would lose a leg and be captured 2 days later as he led a division in Pickett’s Charge, never to return to command. So, he certainly had plenty of scores to settle in 1898, 35 years later. Ewell never wrote or spoke about the matter in the 7 years he survived after the war.

July 2nd

On day 2, Lee’s plan was for Longstreet to attack north along Emmitsburg Turnpike to Cemetery Ridge combined with a simultaneous pincer move on Culp's Hill by  Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson’s division from Richard S. Ewell’s Second Corp. But Longstreet's brigades of McLaw and Hood were delayed and then got tangled up at Little Round Top and Sickles in the Peach Orchard and Wheatfield. The attack ended at the south section of Cemetery Ridge.

An acoustic shadow at Gettysburg on Day 2 occurred when Ewell was supposed to attack Culp’s Hill when Longstreet’s artillery started firing, but he never heard it, allowing Meade to shift some of the forces on Culp’s Hill to his left flank.

Alpheus Williams led the 1st Division. Due to a mix-up in the command structure, General Williams played a prominent role because of a miscommunication between General Meade and Williams’s superior officer. This miscommunication resulted in Williams commanding the XII Corps. Meanwhile, Maj Gen Henry Slocum believed he was in command of the right wing, consisting of the 11th and 12th Corps, and considered Williams as merely the temporary corps commander of the 12th. Slocum held the Union right from Culp's Hill to across the Baltimore Pike. With Longstreet’s attack, Meade ordered relocating XII Corps from Culps Hill. Williams successfully convinced Meade to leave a single brigade on Culps Hill instead of relocating everyone, to defend the entire right flank. This suggestion ultimately saved the position when the Confederate left wing launched an attack that evening. Despite leading two days of intense fighting on the Union's extreme right, Williams did not receive any official credit, as Slocum was late turning in his report, and Meade already submitted his report to the war department.

Maj Gen George Sears Greene At about 6 pm July 2nd, Meade shifted almost the entire XII Corps from the Union right to strengthen the left flank. Culp’s Hill was weakened to defend Cemetery Ridge against Longstreet’s attack on the left. Brig Gen George S Greene was a brigade commander in the division of Maj. Gen. John W. Geary.. His lone brigade of 1,350 New Yorkers (five regiments) was left to defend a one-half-mile line on Culp's Hill when an entire Confederate division attacked. Fortunately, Greene, a civil engineer, had insisted that his troops construct strong field fortifications. These preparations proved decisive and his brigade held off multiple attacks for hours. With the shift of troops, Greene was left with 5 regiments (1350 troops) to defend ½ mile of front against an entire Confederate corps.

Maj Gen George Sears Greene, a 62-year-old with an impressive war record, found himself continually overlooked for promotion due to his age. On the morning of July 2, he insisted that his men entrench on Culp’s Hill. As a former West Point professor of mathematics and engineering, Greene approached the situation with a strategic mindset that differed from his counterparts. General John Geary and General Henry Slocum did not share Greene's belief in the importance of entrenching on Culp’s Hill, but Greene's foresight would prove crucial in the upcoming battle. Neither General John Geary, a former Mayor of San Francisco, nor General Henry Slocum thought it would matter much.Geary’s division covered the lower hill, near Spangler’s Spring, Kane’s brigade to his right; then on the upper hill was Greene’s division, then Candy’s brigade, followed by a portion of Ruger’s division.

As twilight fell, the fighting on the Union left came to a close, but the assault on the Union right flank continued. Gen. Richard Ewell's forces pressed on, with Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's Confederate division launching an attack on Culp’s Hill. Greene's brigade, consisting of around 1,400 New Yorkers, faced off against Johnson's 4,700 Confederates. Greene understood the significance of holding the extreme right flank of the Union army and protecting vital supply lines. Despite being outnumbered, Greene's men were charged with holding the extreme right flank of the Union army and protecting its supply and communication artery, the nearby Baltimore Pike. Greene extended his line to the right to cover part of the lower slope, but his 1,400 men were dangerously overextended since they were only able to form a single battle line, without reserves.

Johnson's Confederate forces encountered fierce resistance as they charged up the slopes of Culp’s Hill. Greene's men had constructed formidable breastworks that halted the Confederate advance. Although Gen. George "Maryland" Steuart's brigade managed to outflank the Federal right flank, Greene's strategic positioning and defensive measures proved effective. The natural obstacles provided by the hill hindered the Confederate forces' progress, showcasing Greene's tactical acumen and the importance of his decision to entrench on Culp’s Hill.

At 7 pm with darkness gathering, Ewell initiated a significant infantry attack. He deployed three brigades, consisting of approximately 4,700 soldiers, from the division led by Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson. These troops crossed Rock Creek and ascended the eastern slope of Culp's Hill. However, Greene's entrenched position played a crucial role in the outcome of the assault. It allowed for reinforcements from the I Corps and XI Corps to come to his aid from the left. Wadsworth dispatched three regiments, while Howard on Cemetery Hill sent four, totaling around 750 men. Greene issued orders to hold the position under any circumstances. Despite four subsequent attacks made in the darkness, the line to his right remained threatened but was bolstered by additional reinforcements. The assaults persisted until 11 pm and resumed the following morning.

On the far right flank of the Union army, Col. David Ireland of the 137th New York faced a formidable attack. Under intense pressure, the New Yorkers were compelled to retreat and occupy a traversing trench engineered by Greene, which faced south. Despite sustaining heavy casualties, they valiantly held their ground and safeguarded the flank. Unbeknownst to Steuart's men, due to the darkness and the heroic defense of Greene's brigade, they failed to realize that they had nearly unrestricted access to the Union army's primary communication line, the Baltimore Pike, which lay only 600 yards ahead. Ireland and his men averted a potential catastrophe.

Adelbert Ames, though not as famous as Chamberlain, who took over his position after his promotion, performed exceptionally well in the difficult circumstances at Gettysburg. During the intense attack led by Ewell on July 1, 1863, Ames, under the command of Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow, positioned his division in front of other units of the XI Corps on Barlow's Knoll. This exposed location was quickly overrun, leading to Barlow's capture and injury. Ames then took charge of the division and skillfully orchestrated a retreat through Gettysburg, eventually establishing a defensive position on Cemetery Hill. On July 2, during the second day of battle, Ames's division faced the brunt of the assault on East Cemetery Hill by Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early but managed to hold the crucial position with support from neighboring units. Ames even engaged in hand-to-hand combat at one point. Following the battle, the soldiers of the 20th Maine honored Ames by presenting him with their battle flag as a symbol of their respect.

When the XII Corps returned to the right flank late that night, Confederate forces had taken over parts of the Union defensive line on the southeastern slope of the hill, near Spangler's Spring. Union soldiers, disoriented in the darkness, found enemy troops in the positions they had left. Gen. Williams instructed his men to occupy the open field in front of the woods and await daylight. While Steuart's brigade managed to hold onto the lower heights precariously, Johnson's other two brigades were withdrawn from the hill to wait for daylight as well. Geary's troops came back to reinforce Greene, ensuring the defense of the position.

July 3rd.

The idea that the Copse was the focus was Batchelder’s incorrect and misleading attempt to bring attention to the area on the field where the attack went, not what was the real objective. Lee’s plan for both days 2 & 3 was the union center. That’s why a coordinated attack at Culp’s Hill was so necessary.

As General Lee stated in his official report, "The general plan was unchanged". The commanding position on the battlefield was Cemetery Hill. Piercing the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge was NOT the objective; Zeigler Grove was the large clump of trees in 1863, not the tiny thin saplings of the Copse. Those large trees were used for lumber many years after the battle and before John B. Bachelder's promoting and marking the high-water mark. This combined with a simultaneous pincer move on Culp's Hill by  Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson’s division from Richard S. Ewell’s Second Corp was the real plan.

At dawn, five Union batteries opened fire on Steuart's brigade in the positions they had captured and kept them pinned down for 30 minutes before an attack by two of Geary's brigades. Simultaneously, the Confederates initiated their own attack, resulting in a prolonged engagement that lasted well into the morning, marked by three unsuccessful offensives by Johnson's troops. Despite facing relentless charges from Ewell's entire corps on the night of July 2nd and throughout the following morning of July 3rd, Greene managed to maintain control of the hill, fending off repeated assaults from 4,700 Confederate soldiers and securing the upper summit.

Although Greene's contributions to the Union victory at Gettysburg were significant, his heroism is often overshadowed by other more well-known figures from the battle. As the oldest surviving Union general and West Point graduate, Greene's legacy deserves to be remembered and honored. His monument on Culps Hill serves as a reminder of his bravery and dedication to the Union cause during one of the most critical battles of the Civil War.

In addition to Greene, General John Geary also played a pivotal role in the defense of Culps Hill. His bold counterattack on July 3, 1863, helped drive the Confederates from their positions and protected the Union Army's vital supply line, the Baltimore Pike. Geary's decisive actions at Culps Hill exemplified the courage and determination of Union forces in securing a crucial victory at Gettysburg.

East Cavalry Field

A classic cavalry engagement occurred four miles east of Gettysburg on the afternoon of July 3, 1863. The strategic significance of the vacant field was heightened by the presence of two important roads: the York Pike to the north and the Hanover Road to the south. Brig. Gen. David M. Gregg's Union cavalry, positioned on the Hanover Road, guarded the rear of the Army of the Potomac. Recognizing the threat posed by Confederate control of the Hanover Road and the intersecting Low Dutch Road to the Union's supply line along the Baltimore Pike, Gregg was reinforced by 1,900 Michigan cavalrymen under Brig. Gen. George A. Custer. Together, Gregg and Custer established a defensive line at the intersection, supported by 10 artillery pieces.

Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart led 5,000 Confederate cavalrymen to the northern side of the field. Contrary to previous teaching, there is no concrete evidence suggesting that Stuart and Lee coordinated this assault with Pickett's Charge. Stuart's initial orders were to safeguard the flank of the Army of Northern Virginia, but he later admitted that his true intention was to launch a surprise attack on the enemy's rear. Stuart's charge was met with a countercharge by General Custer, effectively halting the assault. A subsequent charge led by Brig. Gen. Wade Hampton with 2,000 mounted men was also repelled by Custer and the 7th Michigan regiment. Throughout the engagement, Gregg maintained his position. Although not strategically significant, the battle showcased the Union cavalry's growing prowess as a formidable fighting force, reminiscent of their performance at Brandy Station.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further Reading

·       Himmer, Robert, "New Light on Maj. Gen. Henry W. Slocum's Conduct on the First Day at Gettysburg". Gettysburg Magazine. 43, July 2010.

·       Troy D Harman, “In Defense of Henry Slocum on July 1.”
http://npshistory.com/series/symposia/gettysburg_seminars/9/essay3.pdf

·       Coddington, Edwin B. The Gettysburg Campaign; a study in command. New York: Scribner's, 1968. 

·       Gottfried, Bradley M. The Maps of Gettysburg: An Atlas of the Gettysburg Campaign, June 3 – June 13, 1863. New York: Savas Beatie, 2007. 

·       Murray, R. L. A Perfect Storm of Lead, George Sears Greene's New York Brigade in Defense of Culp's Hill. Wolcott, NY: Benedum Books, 2000. 

·       Petruzzi, J. David, and Steven Stanley. The Complete Gettysburg Guide. New York: Savas Beatie, 2009. 

·       Pfanz, Harry W. Gettysburg: Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993. 

·       Sears, Stephen W. Gettysburg. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/custers-stand-east-cavalry-field

·       John B Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War. Louisiana State University Press, 1993.

Klein, Lloyd W,https://thecivilwarcenter.org/2023/07/04/general-lees-if-practicable-order-to-general-ewell-on-july-1-at-gettysburg/

US Anti-Imperialism in the Middle East: The Suez Crisis

Do you know about the time that the USA went against Israel and the Western powers in the Middle East? Here, Andrew Patterson tells us about the 1956 Suez Crisis, when the US did not support Britain, France, and Israel’s ambitions against Egypt.

A picture of Egyptian military vehicles that have been damaged in the Sinai Peninsula.

The Suez Canal Crisis was like a high-stakes poker game of global power. Imagine Egypt’s leader, Nasser, suddenly nationalizing the Suez Canal, basically a lifeline for world trade. This move freaks out London and Paris, sparking a secret buddy-up with Israel to snatch it back. Then struts in the USA, led by Eisenhower, looking to shake up the global power playlist. It was a showdown that not only reshaped the Middle East’s role in the Cold War but also turned the US into the surprise superhero for Egypt against the old-world colonial vibe. Diving into the Suez Crisis, we see the US playing the role of an unlikely hero, championing Egypt in the epic struggle to shake off colonial chains.

The Suez Canal’s a big deal—key for shipping oil and goods, and in the 1950s a colonial chess piece for way too long. Enter Egypt's bold move to nationalize it. This wasn't just about owning a canal; it was Egypt shouting from the rooftops that they were done being a pawn in the global game of thrones.

During the Cold War's peak, with the world split between capitalism and communism, the U.S. hit a fork in the road. Under Eisenhower, America ditched its old gunboat diplomacy for a surprising new look: anti-imperialism. Suddenly, the U.S. started sounding like it was rooting for the underdog, aligning its playbook with nations tired of colonial hangovers. It was a game-changer, showing the world that the U.S. was ready to mix things up and support countries carving out their own destinies.

The Eisenhower Doctrine

Eisenhower's foreign policy was like walking a tightrope—with the U.S. juggling the need to curb Soviet spread while ditching the old-school, imperialist tactics of its European buddies. The Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957 was his way of saying, "We've got your back" to Middle Eastern countries fighting off communism, but the Suez Crisis was the real litmus test, pushing the U.S. to flex its anti-imperialist muscles sooner.

In 1956 Egypt's President Nasser Declaring the canal as Egypt’s own was a game-changing moment, throwing down the gauntlet against old colonial shadows and ushering in a fresh chapter of independence and self-rule.

Old Powers Collude

Britain, France, and Israel didn't waste any time cooking up a military response. Their plan? Israel would kick off an invasion, with British and French troops jumping in under the guise of keeping the canal open. But let's be real, their eyes were on the bigger prize: knocking Nasser off his pedestal and taking back the canal. This move was straight out of the old colonial playbook—an attempt to turn back the clock to a time when gunboat diplomacy and empire-building were the order of the day.

When Britain, France, and Israel moved on Egypt, the U.S. threw a curveball by condemning the invasion, stunning its usual pals. This was a loud and clear signal from America: the days of imperialist playbooks were done. Eisenhower and crew, sticking to their anti-imperialist guns, viewed the invasion as a potential spark for a much larger fire, possibly drawing the Soviet Union into a broader conflict that could destabilize the Cold War's delicate balance.

New Boss New Rules

Breaking with tradition, the U.S. stood firm against old friends Britain and France, plus Israel, over their joint military move. Eisenhower didn't just talk a big game; he backed it up with the threat of economic sanctions against Britain, who at the time was pretty much banking on U.S. financial aid.

In this era, the U.S. didn't just stand by; it dove into some serious diplomacy to stop the fighting. By defending Egypt's right to manage the Suez Canal, the U.S. was basically broadcasting a new rulebook to the world: national sovereignty was in, and old-school colonial aggression was out. This stance was a global announcement, especially aimed at the Soviet Union, that the U.S. had zero patience for imperialist antics, even from its best buddies.

The U.S. used the United Nations as a stage to rally global opinion. By advocating for a resolution that demanded a ceasefire and the retreat of the invaders, America emerged as a peacemaker, pushing for diplomacy over force. This move not only boosted the U.S.'s rep as a champion of international law and the UN but also showed it as a superpower ready to back smaller nations against colonial leftovers.

The crisis ended with Britain and France yielding to the pressure, mainly from the U.S., and pulling out their troops—a win for Egypt and a face-palm moment for the European duo. The landscape of global politics was forever altered. This wasn't just about who controlled a crucial waterway; it was a turning point, signaling the end of European colonial clout and the beginning of an era dominated by U.S. influence. The retreat of British and French troops, nudged along by the U.S., waved goodbye to the age of empires stretching their borders too far.

The U.S. walked away taller, having stuck to its guns on national sovereignty and a clear no to go-it-alone military moves—a big leap from the days of showing force first and asking questions later. Emerging with a reputation for valuing sovereignty and shunning solo military ventures, the U.S. marked a departure from centuries of Western might-makes-right tactics. For Egypt and Nasser, it was a clear win, boosting Nasser's standing as an anti-colonial hero and igniting nationalist passions beyond the Middle East.

The crisis also reshaped global power balances, underscoring the dwindling might of Britain and France while spotlighting the Middle East as a self-determining region, increasingly important on the world stage, often with superpower support or interference. Reflecting on the Suez Crisis, we're reminded of diplomacy's value, the importance of supporting the underdog, and the dynamic forces that mold our world. It's a narrative of transformation, confrontation, and hope for a fairer international community.

Andrew Patterson is an amateur history enthusiast who writes for https://easternchronicles.me/ , a website dedicated to Middle Eastern history, Travel writing & archeology.

For the Love of Speech – The Art of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

As Gandalf tells us in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, "Perilous to us all are the devices of an art which we do not possess ourselves." Of course, Gandalf is talking about a dangerous, magical object that can communicate across space and time: a palantír stone. But the message rings true, too, about the powers of language and writing, which--like a palantír stone--can also traverse boundaries of space and time. Step into a library and you might have dialogues with thousands of the dead. 

Some of history's most dangerous and destabilizing figures were masters of the art of speech. They possessed great oratorical skills, but were devoid of a greater sense of ethics. In Plato's reckoning, a true rhetorician must unite their art of speech with philosophy. After all, if we do not possess ourselves a sense of how language can persuade us and work us over, then we will be all the more susceptible to those who might wield rhetoric against us. 

In the following excerpt, Dr. Daniel Lawrence (author of a recent book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK) goes back to the world of the ancient Greeks, where one's ability to speak well could literally be a matter of life and death. It's no wonder, given these circumstances, that an art of persuasion and various theories of language and perception emerged. Yet, as many rhetorical scholars have now documented, many different people at many different times and places developed arts and theories of writing and speech: the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Chinese, and various Indigenous peoples across the world. Wherever there is writing, language, and technology, there seems to emerge a human critique of its power. The author believes this rich tradition of critique--this art of rhetoric--is precisely what we need more of in our world today to help combat the growing dangers of digital disinformation and the unsettling, persuasive abilities of artificial intelligence. 

Oratorical skills are referenced in Homer’s Iliad. Above picture: Iliad, Book VIII, lines 245–253.

The ancient Greeks loved speeches. In the beginning of Phaedrus, one of my favorite dialogues by Plato, the titular character Phaedrus tells Socrates that he has just returned from a morning of making speeches with his friend Lysias. This would seem to be a rather funny thing in today’s world: to meet a friend for lunch, ask them how they spent their morning, and be told, “Oh, I was just over at Jane’s apartment. We were making speeches all morning.” Though this would not be a common occurrence today, the art of making speeches was close to the heart of ancient Greek culture. In a world where writing was a relatively new technology, writing tools and materials were expensive, and there was a reliance on oral tradition. Thus, speechmaking was a valued pastime. In many ways, this same desire for communication and storytelling is now fed by our media addictions: television, YouTube, film, podcasts, or binging a Netflix series. We don’t want to dismiss the important differences in our cultures, but we also shouldn’t forget just how similar humans can be across time and space.

Not all fun

But rhetoric wasn’t all fun, games, and entertainment for the ancient Greeks. The renowned classicist and scholar of rhetoric, George Kennedy, explains in his seminal A New History of Classical Rhetoric that this fascination with speeches was at least partially due to the vital, life-saving necessity of wielding language persuasively. Because there was no regular system of legal representation in ancient Greece, citizens would often be required to defend themselves in a court of law or to lay out their case against an opponent. In these early days of democratic society, your ability to speak could literally be a matter of life or death. If your neighbor accused you of stealing their goat—or worse, their horse—then you better have been able to make a compelling argument about why it wasn’t possible that you stole it as you proved your innocence. Perhaps you would make an appeal to ethos—that is, your character and credibility—and say, “I am an honest and law-abiding citizen of Athens. How could a person like me commit such a crime?” Perhaps you would make an appeal to pathos—that is, the emotions of your listeners—by pleading, “I am a father of five children and must work hard to provide for them. Would you rob these children of their father by imprisoning me based on the false claims of this greedy accuser?” Or perhaps you would appeal to the logos (or logic) of the audience and claim, “I was all day yesterday at the Theatre of Dionysus, a fact to which many of my fellow citizens can attest. How could I have been in two places at once?”

Today, we don’t take language seriously enough. The rhetorician Lloyd Bitzer wrote in his oft-cited essay (and bane of disinterested undergraduate students everywhere) “The Rhetorical Situation” that “rhetoric is a mode of altering reality,” not by physically moving material objects around, but by “the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action.” This is just an academic way of saying that speech and language can literally change the way we perceive the world, the way we think, and the way we act. And certainly, we know this to be the case. We might hear a powerful sermon and be swayed into a life of service to a god, or we might see a compelling video advertisement which, even imperceptibly or insensibly, cements an idea in our mind of which make and model of automobile we want to purchase. Language can have life-altering effects on us. We may be convinced to take a job in a new city or to vote for a particular political candidate. Gorgias, the rockstar rhetorician of ancient Greece, likened language to a kind of drug, or pharmakon. To me, that appears to be a reasonable explanation for the brainwashing and spellbinding experienced by the German population under Hitler in the early-to-mid twentieth century. But then, it’s easy to see when it’s happening to other people: “How could all those Germans have just fallen right in line with that evil man? Couldn’t they see through his lies?” No, most could not. It’s easy to see when others are being persuaded. It’s painful and difficult to observe it in ourselves. We like to believe we are immune to persuasion, but we are all persuadable.

Persuasion

It’s not just language that is persuasive, though. It is the combined effects of rhetoric that persuade us. Hitler’s powers of persuasion included his mannerisms, gesticulations, the timbre and inflection of his voice, his word choice (diction), the way he constructed sentences (syntax), and his use of rhetorical techniques like allusion or antithesis. It was his use of symbolism and architecture (such as the golden eagle, standard in the grand Nazi-party rallies and the ubiquitous swastika) as well as his deft wielding of then-new technologies such as radio, film, and fast travel by airplane. As Quintilian told us, even “the mere look of a man can be persuasive.” Contemporary psychology tells us just as much. Tall people make more money over their lifetime, according to findings on a “height-salary link” that was documented in one study by Timothy A. Judge, PhD and Daniel M. Cable, PhD. In another uncomfortable set of studies, researchers found that attractive women received higher grades in college courses—an effect that diminishes when teaching is conducted remotely and online. We like to think that we’re objective, rational, and fair, but there’s a broad expanse of research that shows the opposite to be true; we’re easily persuaded and carry many deeply held biases and values within us, and these affect the way we perceive and interact with others and the world around us.

We don’t understand, fully, comprehensively, scientifically, how persuasion works. There is, at present, no satisfactory or complete picture of persuasion in the neurological, psychological, rhetorical, or sociological literature. It’s a tricky beast to pin down precisely. Persuasion is complicated. We are practically left with the same conundrum today as our ancestors faced thousands of years ago. In some sense, I am grateful for this. I have no doubt that if a universal theory of persuasion were discovered, corporations, political parties, and governments would take full advantage of the knowledge, and democracy would be in further jeopardy. Yet, even without a universal theory of persuasion, this is essentially the place we find ourselves in. Using imagery, video, hyper-targeted social media advertisements, psychographic profiling techniques, big data, modern computing power, and complex technological distribution mechanisms, persuasion and propaganda have become more powerful and more dangerous today than ever before. As I will write about later in this book, the UK firm Cambridge Analytica used weaponized social media advertising strategies to influence elections all over the world, while companies at present are spending more money on digital advertising than print, billboards, mailers, leaflets, radio, television, magazine, newspaper, and all other forms of traditional advertising combined. And they called those they targeted with the bulk of their budget “The Persuadables.” The Persuadables were a demographic of centrists Cambridge Analytica profiled as being on-the-fence and able to be pushed to vote for one candidate over another. While we don’t know the extent to which Cambridge Analytica influenced presidential results in the U.S. in 2016, we can rightly assume that companies wouldn’t be paying for such services if they didn’t yield results. Digital disinformation is a massive global undertaking, and we are the targets.

Conclusion

Now, I’m not suggesting that we return to the oral culture of the ancient Greeks and all start making speeches as a form of entertainment. (It might be fun, though.) We can’t force a cultural change like that. But what should be most shocking to us is that we have completely abandoned the one field of study that deals directly with disinformation, propaganda, and information literacy in this time of crisis, when there is more technologically advanced disinformation threatening democracy than ever be- fore in the history of humanity. The field of study that deals with these extraordinary questions of truth, credibility, disinformation, propaganda, and information literacy is the study of rhetoric. I know that teaching and learning about rhetoric can be interesting (and even fun) when done right. Furthermore, there may not be anything more powerful for a person to learn than how to speak and write effectively and persuasively. How can we live in a time like this and not teach our children about rhetoric, the field of study that could empower them to disarm disinformation, advocate for their rights and values in an increasingly polarized realm of political discourse, and be resilient to the thousands of advertisements and propagandic messages that are launched at them daily from smart phones, computer screens, and the increasing number of screens in our homes, schools, and places of work? How else to protect them from the idealogues that fill our schools, companies, and communities? Rhetoric is that secret, ancient discipline that can help us in our great time of need. We are all persuadables, and we need help.

Dr. Daniel Lawrence has a recently published book: Disinformed: A History of Humanity's Search for the Truth. It is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Reclaiming the “One Nation” Tradition: What are the Lessons from the Past and Policy Options for a Future Conservative Administration?

For several months now, polls have suggested a sweeping victory for the Labour Party at the next British general election; an alarming prospect for the government and one that recently led some Conservatives to openly call for a change of leader in the hope that this will remove the likelihood of electoral armageddon and the end of 14 years of Conservative governance. Here, Vittorio Trevitt considers this in a historical context – and looks at what could happen in the future.

Benjamin Disraeli, circa 1873.

Much of the Conservative administration’s polling plight is arguably the result of the increased levels of poverty and wage stagnation that the party has presided over. Throughout its history, however, and in comparison to the current and more recent Conservative ministries, the Conservative Party has on many occasions upheld a noteworthy tradition that champions a degree of governmental action to lessen inequalities and elevate opportunity. That tradition is the One Nation brand of British Conservatism.

The origins of this tradition can be traced to the one-time Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli, who spoke of England in a novel he composed, “Sybil,” as being made up “of two nations – one rich, one poor,” and as prime minister introduced a wide range of reforms aimed at bridging that gap. Amongst these included measures to improve the legal status of unions, improvements in living conditions and sanitation in urban areas, food safety standards, and restrictions on the working hours of women and children. The term “One Nation” came to be associated with members of the Conservative Party who believed that Conservatism should reach out to all sections of British society.

The principles of One Nation Conservatism were evident in the social policies of Disraeli’s successors, who utilised the power of the state to mitigate numerous social evils. The 1887 Truck Amendment Act broadened the range of workers protected by legislation ensuring that they be paid in coins rather than in tickets or goods that could only be used at employer-owned shops. The 1889 Cotton Cloth Factories Act regulated the degree of humidity and temperature in such establishments, while the 1890 Housing of the Working Classes Act encouraged local authority public housing schemes. An Education Act of 1891 provided, as noted by one study, “grants for schools willing to abolish fees for children between three and fifteen years of age.” The 1891 Factory and Workshop Act included various provisions aimed at safeguarding labour including an expansion of sanitary regulations, and the following year a Shop Hours Regulation Act sought to limit the weekly working hours of shop assistants under the age of 18 to 74, which included times for meals. In 1897, an important Workmen’s Compensation Act was passed that, while not universal, nevertheless legally obligated employers to pay compensation to workers when accidents occurred.

Early 19th century

The early Twentieth Century also witnessed the passage of much legislation bearing the stamp of One Nation Conservatism. Arthur Balfour’s 1902-1905 administration passed legislation setting up Distress Committees to reduce the hardships suffered by those experiencing unemployment by means of supporting such individuals in finding employment. A 1923 Industrial Insurance Act offered safeguards for millions of policyholders, while the 1925 Merchant Shipping (International Labour Convention) Act provided improved rights for seamen. That same year, a permanent Food Council was set up to prevent food price profiteering, and the Lead Paint (Protection Against Poisoning) Act from the following year sought to protect paint trade workers from lead poisoning. A Mining Act introduced that same year provided for a 5% levy on royalties to help support the installation of pithead baths. For people in rural areas, the 1926 Housing (rural workers') act entitled owners of rural cottages to loans and grants for home improvements, while the 1928 Agricultural Credits Act furnished farmers with a loan system to help them in purchasing their farms.

This reforming trend would continue throughout the Thirties, in spite of the social and economic turmoil of the Great Depression. New housing laws were passed with the intention of alleviating bad housing, and in 1934 a Milk in School scheme was launched that over 2 million children benefited from. The 1936 Agriculture Act set up an unemployment insurance scheme for agricultural workers, while the 1937 National Health Insurance (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Act allowed for medical treatment to be provided for juveniles the moment they entered insurable employment, instead of waiting until the full health insurance age of 16 to receive such care. Also that year, a Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributions) Act was passed that offered voluntary insurance to those left out of a previous scheme for beneficiaries of such benefits. The 1938 Poor Law Amendment Act provided for the payment of cash allowances to inmates aged 65 and over, while a Blind Persons Actpassed that same year reduced the old age pension eligibility age from 50 to 40 years for blind persons. Other measures included the 1939 Cancer Act, which improved facilities for the treating people with cancer, the 1937 Factory Act (which enhanced workplace safety standards), and the granting of paid holidays to about an additional 1 million workers via the 1938 Holidays with Pay Act.

Post-war period

The values of One-Nation Conservatism were also evident in many of the policies carried out by successive Conservative governments following the end of the Second World War. Although responsible for dubious decisions including the re-introduction of prescription charges (which was legislated for but never implemented under the previous Labour administration) and the 1957 Rent Act (which decontrolled rents throughout much of the private sector), they also carried out notable reforms such as a major housebuilding programme (which produced 300,000 homes per annum), grants to encourage home improvements, and new social entitlements such as a severe disablement occupational allowance for war pensioners and a home confinement grant for new mothers. A Small Farmer Scheme was also set up in 1959 to assist such farmers, with one historian asserting that, while the scheme only received a modest amount of money, the principle was novel “since it offered assistance only to those farmers whose businesses were not economic yet were capable of becoming so.” Edward Heath’s 1970-74 ministry, although maligned with justification for abolishing free milk for primary school children between the ages of 8 and 11, introduced such innovations as rent allowances, an invalidity benefit for those with severe disabilities, and the Family Income Supplement; a top-up benefit for those earning low wages. In addition, the fair rents system that the 1964-70 Labour government introduced for private tenants was extended to those in the public sector.

The 1971 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act made oil tanker owners liable for any oil pollution they caused, while the Motor Vehicle (Passenger Insurance) Act of that year brought all passengers under liability insurance coverage. The 1971 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, in the words of one study, provided “that in assessing the claim of a widow neither her prospects of remarriage nor her actual remarriage would be taken into account,” while the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act provided financial support “for parties to marriage and children of family.” A comprehensiveLand Compensation Act was also passed in 1973, designed to offer compensation to individuals whose properties had been negatively impacted by road and redevelopment schemes or had been compulsorily purchased. This included special home loss payments to occupiers in addition to any entitlement to normal market value payment, advance compensation payments of up to 90% of the amount the acquiring authority estimated, a legal bar on the practice whereby compensation was lowered in cases where local councils rehoused persons in a council house and, for the first time, the right of certain business tenants to compensation for removal expenses and trade loss.

Thatcher era

In many respects, the Heath Ministry represented the swansong of One Nation Conservatism, despite having been elected on a platform calling for reduced economic state intervention. The onset of Thatcherism undeniably sounded the death-knell of the Party’s One Nation tradition as a driving force in policy-making. Margaret Thatcher’s rise to the Conservative leadership in 1975 signalled an ideological turn to the Right; one that would find substance in the numerous ministries she led from 1979 onwards. Adhering to the belief that the State should limit its role in social and economic affairs as much as possible, Thatcherism presided over de-industrialisation on a large scale together with curbs on benefit rights. Paradoxically, while average living standards rose, the percentage of Britons living in povertyalso went up. The succeeding New Labour governments, while maintaining Thatcherite economic reforms and presiding over tests for certain benefits, facilitated a steady drop in poverty during most of their time in office; a positive development arguably attributable to new social programmes like pensioner and working family tax credits. Ironically, it was measures such as these that pre-Thatcherite Conservative ministries often rolled out themselves.

To the present

Given the circumstances, it may be time for the Conservative Party to reclaim the “One Nation” mantle and adopt a more activist strategy aimed at making greater use of the state as a force for social change if it hopes to remain in office after 2024.

More can be done to stimulate the social housing sector; a move that a 2023 poll suggested would be very popularamongst Conservative voters. A long-term care insurance system like the one established in Holland under the right-of-centre De Jong cabinet in 1968 (which remains in place to this day) could alleviate the financial burden of households in providing care for elderly relatives. The adequacy of sick pay need addressing, with Britain ranking amongst the lowest in Europe in this category. In addition, income poverty can be tackled by raising the level of unemployment payments, with the UKs replacement rate far below most OECD members like Luxembourg, Iceland and Slovenia. The Conservatives could also improve the family benefits system by introducing new social programmes for families. A Recreational Allowance could assist families with paying for family activities such as going to the cinema, while a Family Holiday Allowance could help pay towards the cost of holiday activities. In education, the Conservative Party could follow the example of Jamaica’s governing centre-right Labour Party, which recently announced the goal of providing free tuition for all public university students; a move that would make Jamaica the first Caribbean nation to do so.

There is, therefore, much in the One Nation tradition that the modern day Conservative Party can learn from, while there exist a number of policy options consistent with that tradition which either the current or a future Conservative administration could introduce. Adopting a more progressive policy agenda would not only be beneficial to the Conservative Party in political terms and in keeping with its historical heritage, but by tackling disadvantage and raising levels of personal health and wellbeing, it would be beneficial to the British people as a whole.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Most Infamous Outlaws of the Old West

The Old West is often romanticized in American history, with images of gunslingers and outlaws roaming the frontier in search of adventure and fortune. These individuals played a significant role in shaping the history of the American West, with their actions leaving a lasting impact on the development of the region. 
 
Gunslingers were skilled marksmen who were known for their quick draw and accuracy with a firearm. These individuals were often hired as lawmen or hired guns by towns and ranchers to protect their interests and maintain order in the often lawless frontier towns. Gunslingers were also known for their dueling skills, with many settling disputes through gunfights rather than through the legal system. 

Here, Richard Bluttal considers some of the many outlaws or gunslingers of the old west. 

Charles Boles, otherwise known as "Black Bart".

BILLY THE KID

Billy the Kid, whose real name was William H. Bonney, was a legendary American outlaw and gunfighter who lived during the American Old West era. He was born in New York City in 1859 and moved to New Mexico with his family as a young boy. Billy the Kid became involved in criminal activities at a young age, including cattle rustling and other outlaw behavior.

Billy the Kid gained notoriety for his involvement in the Lincoln County War, a violent conflict in New Mexico in the late 1870s. During the war, Billy the Kid was part of a group known as the Regulators, who clashed with rival factions in the area.

After the Lincoln County War, Billy the Kid continued his life as an outlaw, evading capture by law enforcement. He was eventually captured, tried, and sentenced to hang for his crimes. However, he managed to escape from jail and remained a fugitive until he was tracked down and shot dead by Sheriff Pat Garrett in 1881.

Billy the Kid's life and exploits have been the subject of numerous books, movies, and songs, and he has become a legendary figure in American folklore and the history of the American West. 

BLACK BART 

Black Bart, whose real name was Charles Earl Bowles, was a notorious American outlaw who operated in California and Oregon during the late 19th century. He earned the nickname "Black Bart" for his preference for wearing black clothing and his dark, bushy beard. Born in Norfolk, England in 1829, Bowles immigrated to the United States as a child with his family. He grew up in New York and eventually made his way to California during the Gold Rush of the 1850s. Bowles tried his hand at various jobs, including mining and ranching, but found little success. In the early 1870s, Bowles turned to a life of crime and began robbing stagecoaches in the remote areas of California and Oregon. He adopted the persona of "Black Bart," a mysterious and dashing outlaw who left poems at the scene of his robberies. These poems often mocked the authorities and taunted his pursuers, earning him a reputation as a gentleman bandit. Black Bart was known for his polite and non-violent approach to robbery. He never harmed his victims or used violence during his heists, preferring to rely on intimidation and his reputation as a skilled marksman. Despite his criminal activities, Black Bart was seen as a Robin Hood figure by some, as he targeted wealthy individuals and corporations rather than ordinary citizens. Over the course of his criminal career, Black Bart successfully robbed over 28 stagecoaches, amassing a considerable fortune in gold and cash. However, his luck eventually ran out when he was captured in 1883 after leaving behind a handkerchief with his laundry mark at the scene of a robbery. Black Bart was tried and convicted of robbery, but his polite demeanor and gentlemanly conduct during the trial earned him sympathy from the public and the press. He was sentenced to six years in San Quentin State Prison but was released after serving just four years due to good behavior. After his release from prison, Black Bart disappeared from the public eye and was never heard from again. The details of his later life and death remain shrouded in mystery, adding to the legend of one of the most infamous outlaws of the American West. Black Bart's story continues to captivate historians and enthusiasts of the Old West, cementing his place in American folklore as a daring and enigmatic figure. 

BELLE STARR 

Belle Starr, also known as the "Bandit Queen" or the "Queen of the Outlaws," was a notorious American outlaw who gained notoriety during the late 19th century. Born as Myra Maybelle Shirley in Carthage, Missouri in 1848, Belle Starr was raised in a respectable, middle-class family. However, she was drawn to a life of crime and adventure from a young age, influenced by her father, who was involved in various criminal activities. Belle Starr's criminal career began in her teenage years when she eloped with a man named Jim Reed, who was a known outlaw and Confederate guerrilla fighter. The couple embarked on a life of crime, robbing banks, stagecoaches, and trains across the American South. Belle Starr quickly gained a reputation for her sharpshooting skills, fearless demeanor, and flamboyant style, earning her the nickname "Bandit Queen." After Jim Reed was killed in a gunfight in 1864, Belle Starr married several more outlaws and continued her criminal activities, becoming a prominent figure in the criminal underworld of the Wild West. She was known to associate with notorious outlaws such as Jesse James and the Younger brothers, further solidifying her reputation as a dangerous and influential figure. Belle Starr's outlaw lifestyle was not without its challenges, as she faced numerous run-ins with the law and spent time in jail for her criminal activities. Despite her criminal record, Belle Starr was admired by many for her independent spirit, defiance of societal norms, and her willingness to challenge the status quo. In addition to her criminal exploits, Belle Starr was also known for her unconventional personal life. She had several husbands and lovers throughout her lifetime, including a Cherokee Indian named Sam Starr, with whom she had a son. Belle Starr's relationships were often tumultuous and marked by violence, adding to her enigmatic and mysterious persona. BelleStarr's criminal career came to an end in 1889 when she was shot and killed under mysterious circumstances near her home in Oklahoma. Her murder remains unsolved to this day, adding to the legend and mystique surrounding the "Bandit Queen." Despite her criminal activities and controversial reputation, Belle Starr remains a fascinating and complex figure in American history. She is remembered as a symbol of rebellion, independence, and defiance against societal norms, challenging traditional gender roles and expectations. Belle Starr's legacy continues to captivate historians, writers, and enthusiasts of the Old West.

JESSIE JAMES 

Jesse James was a notorious American outlaw, guerrilla, and folk hero who became a legendary figure in the history of the American West. Born on September 5, 1847, in Clay County, Missouri, Jesse James was raised in a tumultuous and violent environment that would shape his future as a criminal and outlaw. His life story is one of violence, betrayal, and rebellion against authority, making him a complex and controversial figure in American history.

Jesse James was born into a family that was deeply embroiled in the violent politics of the Civil War. His father, Robert James, was a Baptist minister who supported the Confederate cause and joined a pro-Confederate guerrilla band known as Quantrill's Raiders. This group of guerrillas carried out raids and attacks on Union soldiers and sympathizers, engaging in brutal acts of violence and retribution. Jesse James grew up in this environment of lawlessness and chaos, witnessing the horrors of war and the brutality of conflict at a young age.

After the end of the Civil War, Jesse James and his older brother Frank James continued their involvement in criminal activities, robbing banks, trains, and stagecoaches across the Midwest. They formed a gang of outlaws that included members such as Cole Younger, Jim Younger, and Clell Miller, who carried out a series of daring and audacious robberies that captured the imagination of the American public. The James-Younger gang became one of the most notorious criminal organizations of the post-Civil War era, striking fear into the hearts of law enforcement and civilians alike.

Jesse James quickly gained a reputation as a cunning and ruthless outlaw who was able to evade capture and outwit the authorities. He became a folk hero to many Americans, especially in the South, where he was seen as a symbol of resistance against the oppressive forces of Reconstruction and federal authority. Songs, ballads, and dime novels were written about Jesse James, portraying him as a Robin Hood-like figure who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. This image of Jesse James as a romantic and chivalrous outlaw only added to his mystique and appeal to the public.

However, the reality of Jesse James' life was far more complex and troubled than the myth that surrounded him. He was involved in numerous violent confrontations with law enforcement, leading to the deaths of many innocent bystanders and officers of the law. The Pinkerton Detective Agency, a private detective agency hired by the railroads and banks to capture the James-Younger gang. 

BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID 

They were two of the most infamous outlaws of the American West, known for their daring robberies and their ability to evade capture by law enforcement. Their story has become the stuff of legend, immortalized in books, movies, and television shows. But who were Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and what is the truth behind the myths that have been perpetuated about them?

Butch Cassidy, whose real name was Robert Leroy Parker, was born in Utah in 1866. He got his nickname "Butch" from his time working as a butcher in his youth. Cassidy was a charismatic and intelligent leader, known for his charm and his ability to recruit and lead a gang of outlaws. He was also a skilled horseman and marksman, which made him a formidable opponent for law enforcement.

The Sundance Kid, whose real name was Harry Alonzo Longabaugh, was born in Pennsylvania in 1867. He earned his nickname from his time spent in the town of Sundance, Wyoming, where he got into trouble with the law. The Sundance Kid was known for his quick wit and his sharpshooting skills, which made him a valuable member of Butch Cassidy's gang.

Together, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid formed the Wild Bunch, a gang of outlaws that carried out a series of daring bank and train robberies across the American West. Their most famous robbery was the holdup of the Union Pacific Overland Flyer train in 1900, which netted them over $50,000 in cash and valuables. The Wild Bunch became notorious for their brazen crimes and their ability to elude capture by law enforcement.

Despite their criminal activities, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were also known for their code of honor and their loyalty to their gang members. They were known to treat civilians with respect during their robberies and were admired by many for their daring escapades. However, their criminal lifestyle eventually caught up with them, and they were forced to flee the United States to escape capture.

In 1901, Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and their companion Etta Place fled to South America, where they continued their life of crime. They settled in Argentina and then Bolivia, where they carried out a series of bank robberies and other criminal activities. However, their luck eventually ran out, and in 1908, they were surrounded by Bolivian soldiers during a botched robbery and killed.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Who was Orde Wingate? And was he a World War 2 Military Maverick?

Military history has produced certain figures that stand out not just for their tactical brilliance, but for their unorthodox methods and unwavering commitment to their cause. Among these figures is Orde Wingate, a man whose name evokes both admiration and controversy. Wingate's life, was marked by innovation, audacity, and controversy, whose impact reverberates through the ages.

Terry Bailey explains.

Orde Wingate in 1943.

Born in 1903 in Naini Tal, India, to British Christian missionaries, Wingate's upbringing instilled in him a deep sense of duty and moral righteousness. His formative years in the diverse landscapes of Asia shaped his unconventional worldview and prepared him for the challenges he would face later in life.

Graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst in 1923, Wingate embarked on a military career that would defy convention at every turn. Wingate's early experiences in Palestine during the 1930s laid the groundwork for his unconventional approach to warfare. While serving with the British Mandatory forces, he became deeply involved in counterinsurgency operations against Arab guerrilla forces. It was here that Wingate first experimented with small, highly mobile units operating behind enemy lines—a tactic that would define his later achievements.

However, it was during the Second World War that Wingate truly left his mark on military history. Tasked with combating the Japanese advance in Southeast Asia, Wingate devised a daring plan to harass enemy supply lines and disrupt their communication networks. This plan culminated in the formation of the Chindits, special operations units composed of British, Gurkha, and Burmese soldiers trained in unconventional warfare tactics.

World War Two

The Chindits' first operation, codenamed Operation Longcloth, saw Wingate's forces penetrate deep into Japanese-held territory in Burma. Operating far beyond the reach of conventional supply lines, Wingate's men endured harsh conditions and constant enemy harassment. Despite sustaining heavy casualties, the Chindits succeeded in their primary objective of disrupting Japanese operations and bolstering Allied morale.

Wingate's unorthodox methods and uncompromising leadership style earned him both admirers and detractors within the military establishment. While some hailed him as a visionary strategist, others criticized his disregard for traditional military doctrine and his often abrasive personality. Nonetheless, Wingate's accomplishments on the battlefield spoke for themselves, and his influence continued to grow as the war progressed.

One of Wingate's most enduring legacies was his advocacy for the use of airborne forces in military operations. Recognizing the potential of airborne operations to strike deep behind enemy lines with speed and precision, Wingate lobbied tirelessly for their expansion within the Allied forces. His efforts culminated in the use of glider and other airborne based activity dedicated to conducting airborne operations in support of ground forces, specifically in Operation Thursday.

A number of traditional Generals suggested the Chindits operations had a negative effect on the Asian war effort, with some historians indicating that Wingate’s ideas were flawed in many respects, simply because the Japanese Army did not have Western-style supply lines to disrupt, and tended to ignore logistics generally.

However, the Japanese commander, Mutaguchi Renya, later stated that Operation Thursday had a significant effect on the campaign, saying "The Chindit invasion ... had a decisive effect on these operations ... they drew off the whole of 53 Division and parts of 15 Division, one regiment of which would have turned the scales at Kohima.”

Tragically, Wingate's life was cut short on March, 24 1944 when the plane a USAAF B-25 Mitchell bomber of the 1st Air Commando Group in which he was flying crashed into jungle-covered hills in the present-day state of Manipur, India killing all passengers aboard, including Wingate. His death robbed the world of one of its most innovative military minds, but his legacy lived on in the countless lives he touched and the strategies he pioneered.

Legacy

Needless to say, in the decades since his passing, Wingate's reputation has undergone a re-evaluation, with many historians recognizing his contributions to modern warfare. His emphasis on unconventional tactics, small-unit operations, and strategic mobility laid the groundwork for the special operations today, along with other charismatic military leaders such as Lt Colonel David, Stirling, SAS, Major Vladimir Peniakoff, No. 1 Demolition Squadron, PPA, Major Ralph Alger Bagnold, Long Range Desert Group, Lt Colonel Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, Royal Marines special operations and Lt Colonel William Joseph "Wild Bill" Donovan, OSS to name a few.

Moreover, Orde Wingate’s unyielding commitment to his principles and his willingness to challenge the status quo serve as an inspiration to military leaders around the world. Orde Wingate's life serves as a testament to the power of innovation, determination, and unorthodox thinking. In an era defined by uncertainty and upheaval, his example is a reminder that true greatness lies not in conformity, but in the courage to chart a new course and pursue it relentlessly.

Reflecting on his legacy, it is important to remember that Orde Wingate was not only a military genius, but as a symbol of the indomitable human courage and personal moral standards that drove him to strive for achievement without personal consideration.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What Happened at the May 1864 Battle of the Wilderness in the US Civil War?

The first battle of the Overland Campaign, known as The Battle of the Wilderness, occurred from May 5-7, 1864. General Grant devised a strategic plan to have all Union armies attack simultaneously, preventing General Lee from transferring troops and resources between theaters as he had done in 1863.He would also have all of the eastern armies move toward Richmond: General Butler from the southeast, and General Sigel from the west. Grant recognized that President Lincoln needed concrete evidence of a victorious war in order to secure re-election, so he assured him that regardless of the battle's outcome, he would not retreat. Although only General Sherman managed to execute a successful simultaneous offensive campaign, it proved sufficient to achieve the desired outcome of Grant's plan.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the May 1864 Battle of the Wilderness

Situated south of the Rapidan River in Virginia, The Wilderness encompasses parts of Spotsylvania County and Orange County. Its boundaries extend to Spotsylvania Court House in the south and the Mine Run tributary of the Rapidan River in the west. This densely forested region consists of numerous trees and secondary growths, rendering visibility nearly impossible even to this day. Additionally, the dirt roads within the area were particularly treacherous when wet, making it extremely challenging to coordinate command and control as well as large troop movements.

Grant decided to to establish his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac, led by Major General George G. Meade. While Grant focused on overall strategy, Meade assumed responsibility for tactical matters. The battle unfolded just a few miles west of the Chancellorsville battle site,

The Strategy

In the early months of 1864, the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia found themselves in a standoff along the Rapidan River in central Virginia. General Robert E. Lee, commanding the Confederate forces, was well aware of the numerical and technological superiority of the Union army led by General Ulysses S. Grant. In order to mitigate these disadvantages, Lee strategically chose the Wilderness, a densely wooded area, as the battleground. This terrain would limit the effectiveness of Grant's artillery and provide cover for the smaller Confederate force. Lee positioned his troops behind earthworks along the Rapidan River, with the intention of bringing reinforcements from the rear if necessary. Additionally, Lee's cavalry, under the command of Major General J.E.B. Stuart, patrolled the surrounding countryside to gather intelligence on Grant's movements. 

Grant was fully aware of Lee's defensive strategy and his intention to defend Richmond, the Confederate capital. Rather than attempting to outmaneuver Lee, Grant devised a plan to push his army through the challenging forested terrain and into open ground as quickly as possible. His ultimate objective was to capture Richmond and bring an end to the war. Grant understood that time was of the essence and aimed to advance relentlessly until he reached his goal.

Both generals were keenly aware of each other's intentions and strategies. Lee relied on his scouts and cavalry to provide timely information about Grant's movements, while Grant aimed to swiftly maneuver his army towards Richmond. The stage was set for a decisive confrontation between the Union and Confederate forces in the heart of Virginia.

The Union Army commenced its movement from its base in Culpeper County, where it had concluded its operations at Mine Run the previous fall, and proceeded southward towards the fords of the Rapidan River. At daybreak on May 4, Union cavalry successfully crossed Germanna Ford, dispersing Confederate cavalry pickets and facilitating the construction of two pontoon bridges by Union engineers. Subsequently, General Gouverneur K. Warren's Fifth Corps crossed the ford and ventured into the thick woodland. General Lee had anticipated that General Grant would employ the Germanna and Ely Fords. Grant followed this anticipated course of action relying on speed rather than stealth. However, the advance of some Union units was slow, resulting in the creation of gaps. These occurrences provided Lee with an advantageous position at the outset.

Day 1: May 5

Meade, his commander, instructed Warren to strike the Confederates first, but Warren hesitated due to concerns about attacking the impenetrable thickets. He anticipated difficulties in maintaining a battle line and believed that a piecemeal movement would negate his numerical superiority. While Warren and Meade debated the advantages of an attack along the Orange Turnpike, General Richard S. Ewell's Confederate corps halted three miles west of Wilderness Tavern and constructed formidable earthworks on the western edge of Saunders Field. Reluctantly, Warren positioned his corps astride the turnpike.

Saunders Field, a 50-acre clearing near the Orange Turnpike, stood out amidst the forested surroundings. When Ewell encountered the Union Army, his orders were to engage the enemy and impede their progress, but to avoid a full-scale battle until Longstreet's corps arrived the next day. Ewell positioned his corps across the turnpike along the higher, western edge of the field, providing his troops with a clear field of fire.

As Warren emerged from the woods and entered the field, he was met by Ewell's waiting troops who initially held the advantage. Despite heavy casualties, the Federals managed a momentary breakthrough, but Brigadier General John B. Gordon's brigade swiftly sealed the breach. The arrival of the Union Sixth Corps expanded the front, resulting in further casualties.

Soon after, Union Brig. Gen. Samuel Crawford observed another enemy column at the William Chewning farm headed east on the Orange Plank Road toward its intersection with Brock Road. Due to the limited maneuverability in the area, the crossroads of these two main roads became the focal point of the Union's defensive line. The significance of this intersection is depicted in the accompanying photograph. The potential threat posed by the Confederates was grave, as their occupation of this area could have effectively divided Warren's corps on the turnpike from Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock's Second Corps, which had moved further south after passing Warren. Recognizing the urgency, Meade promptly dispatched Brig. Gen. George W. Getty's Sixth Corps division to seize control of the crossroads. Around 4:00 p.m., Getty's men launched an attack, forcefully advancing through the dense thickets and engaging in close-range combat against Gen. A.P. Hill's corps. Hancock soon arrived to provide support to Getty's forces, and the battle continued until nightfall.

The conditions under which the soldiers fought were extraordinarily challenging. Visibility was severely limited, with a range of no more than 50 feet. This made it impossible to effectively communicate and issue commands. Both sides struggled to maintain a coherent line, often breaking up into smaller groups. The dense underbrush and thorny briars caused numerous scratches to the soldiers' faces and tore their clothing. The smoke generated by gunpowder further hindered their vision, while fires ignited by exploding shells rapidly spread through the dry woods, transforming the Wilderness into a blazing inferno for all the trapped troops. The unfavorable terrain greatly hindered the progress of the two-day battle, reducing it to a series of brutal skirmishes. Additionally, fires that started in the woods proved to be particularly devastating, claiming the lives of many wounded soldiers who were unable to be rescued.

Day 2: May 6

Hancock’s Federals resumed the offensive the next morning. A.P. Hill’s tired troops were forced back, and the Confederate line seemed on the verge of collapse. At this critical juncture, Brig. Gen. John Gregg's Texas Brigade from Gen. James Longstreet's corps arrived just in the nick of time. Longstreet's timely entrance onto the battlefield prevented a potential disaster and immediately launched an attack on Hancock's corps. Two flank attacks—by Longstreet south of the Plank Road and by Gordon north of the turnpike –carried the line and forced the Union behind breastworks.

Longstreet's arrival after an arduous 28-mile march in a single day proved to be a pivotal moment for the Confederate army. His counterattack played a crucial role in saving the day. The nature of Longstreet's movement involved executing a flank attack on Hancock's left flank, utilizing an unfinished railroad bed located within a densely wooded forest. This strategic maneuver took advantage of the element of surprise, as the railroad bed was not marked on local maps. Longstreet's attack was meticulously planned and well-prepared, showcasing his tactical brilliance. By exploiting an old roadbed constructed for a defunct railroad, his forces were able to stealthily navigate through the heavily wooded area undetected, ultimately launching a powerful flanking assault.

Longstreet's men advanced along the Orange Plank Road, pursuing the Union II Corps. Within a span of two hours, their persistent assault nearly drove the II Corps from the field. Longstreet devised innovative tactics to overcome the challenging terrain, ordering the advance of six brigades using heavy skirmish lines. This approach allowed his troops to maintain a continuous barrage of fire on the enemy while simultaneously making themselves elusive targets. The effectiveness of Longstreet's flanking maneuver was evident in the words of Hancock himself, who, after the war, acknowledged the impact of Longstreet's tactics by stating, "You rolled me up like a wet blanket."

General Longstreet had returned to the ANV after being deployed the previous autumn in the Western Theater. Although he had hoped for an independent command, Despite his hopes for an independent command, his deployment in the Western Theater had not yielded the desired result. While his crucial attack at Chickamauga had showcased his military prowess, his subsequent failure to defeat Burnside at Knoxville and his ongoing disagreements with General Braxton Bragg had cast a shadow over his future prospects. General Lee had proposed that Longstreet join forces with Johnston and Beauregard for a joint offensive into Kentucky. However, Bragg, who had now assumed the role of Davis’s military advisor, swiftly rejected this proposition. Consequently, Longstreet found himself once again serving as a corps commander in Virginia.

As Lee's plan to utilize his 14,000 men as an attacking force had proven successful thus far, the next crucial step was to deliver a decisive attack. Longstreet attempted to identify the optimal location on a reconnaissance mission. However, his efforts were met with a tragic turn of events. The treacherous terrain posed numerous challenges, and it was amidst this difficult backdrop that Longstreet fell victim to friendly fire, sustaining severe wounds to his neck and shoulder. Despite being cautioned against proceeding further, his unwavering determination to strategize the winning attack propelled him forward. Tragically, this ill-fated mission resulted in the immediate death of General Micah Jenkins, who was struck in the head during the same ambush. Its an astounding coincidence that this happened just 4 miles down the road from where Stonewall Jackson was ambushed; this section of Wilderness is dark and silent, as shown in the photo.

Mahone’s 12th Virginia was returning to the Orange Plank Road when a brush fire caused them to take a different route that led them across the road in a different location than other members of their brigade. Longstreet and his staff, unknowingly, passed in the middle of Mahone’s men. In a tragic turn of events, a section of soldiers, either lying prone or kneeling, mistook the approaching figures for the enemy and opened fire. As a result, Jenkins, one of Longstreet's men, was fatally struck in the head, while two others also lost their lives.

In his memoirs, Longstreet describes the bullet as passing through his throat and right shoulder, causing his right arm to immediately go limp at his side. Despite the excruciating pain and the presence of blood in his mouth and throat, Longstreet managed to issue orders and communicate with a whispery voice. The conventional narrative suggests that the bullet entered from the front as Longstreet was riding towards his troops. However, this explanation fails to account for the long-term loss of movement in his arm and his persistent hoarseness. A more plausible explanation lies in the possibility of a nerve injury originating from his back, caused by the soldiers who were either kneeling or lying prone behind him. The bullet then passed through his throat as it exited, providing a more coherent explanation for the observed medical facts.

The coordination of attacks on the Union line along the Brock Road was hindered by Longstreet's inability to command. Despite advising Lee to continue the attack, Lee chose to delay the movement until his forces could be realigned. Unfortunately, this delay provided the Union defenders with ample time to reorganize and strengthen their position. As the Confederates moved forward through the heavy brush, their lack of cohesion became evident, and they encountered obstructions in front of the Union line. It was at this point that Hancock's experienced troops successfully halted the Confederate advance. Although the Confederates briefly gained a foothold and planted their flags on the burning works, the Union troops swiftly counterattacked and reclaimed their position.  According to General Alexander’s memoirs: "I have always believed that, but for Longstreet's fall, the panic which was fairly underway in Hancock's [II] Corps would have been extended & have resulted in Grant's being forced to retreat back across the Rapidan."

On May 6th, AP Hill's corps, which had borne the brunt of the previous day's fighting, was not prepared for a repeat onslaught at dawn. Despite the advice of Generals Heth and Wilcox, Hill believed that Longstreet's presence on the field was necessary before he could continue the engagement. But Longstreet was late; when Hancock launched another attack, only Lt Col William Poague's artillery was holding the line, but it was beginning to falter. However, the entry of a Texas brigade from Longstreet's corps onto the field provided a glimmer of hope.

Knowing that a counterattack would save the day, Lee himself prepared to lead it but was stopped by the Texas men, who shouted “Lee to the rear”.

The potential destruction of AP Hill's corps might have occurred if General Ambrose Burnside had acted more swiftly upon receiving orders to advance. However, once again, Burnside failed to recognize the significance of the situation and did not launch an attack that could have altered the course of the battle.

Brig Gen John B Gordon's prominence within the Confederate command structure was solidified during this particular battle. On May 5, his brigade effectively counterattacked and repelled a Federal advance at Saunders Field. The following day, Gordon executed a highly successful flank attack, resulting in the capture of numerous Union soldiers and two Union generals. Although Gordon had initially proposed this maneuver at dawn, his superiors dismissed his suggestion. Positioned on the left flank of the Confederate line, Gordon's scouts informed him that his brigade extended well beyond the right end of the Union line. To confirm this report, Gordon personally conducted a reconnaissance. Eventually, Lee granted Gordon permission to launch his attack that afternoon. According to Gordon's memoirs, had he been authorized earlier, a flank attack could have enveloped the Union right flank. However, Generals Early and Ewell delayed due to incorrect intelligence suggesting that the Union IX Corps was reinforcing the area, and they were reluctant to engage with an outnumbered force.

The attack by Gordon gave rise to a couple of intriguing anecdotes of the war.  When a staff officer urged Grant to retreat, claiming that Lee would cut him off from the ford, Grant became angry, telling the officer that he was tired of always hearing what Lee was going to do.  He ordered the man to stop thinking about Lee and start thinking about what they were going to do.  It has also been rumored that the tough day of fighting caused Grant to become emotional that evening alone in his tent.

Day 3: May 7

Both opposing forces entrenched and awaited an attack from the other army. Having come close to breaking each other's lines the previous day, both armies seemed satisfied with adopting a defensive stance. Recognizing the futility of further assaults in the Wilderness, Grant issued orders for Meade's army to withdraw under the cover of darkness. Additionally, Grant instructed Union engineers to dismantle the pontoon bridges at Germanna Ford. Despite enduring heavy casualties over the course of two days of intense fighting, Grant made the decision not to launch another attack or retreat. Instead, he opted to swiftly proceed towards Spotsylvania Court House, effectively positioning himself between Richmond and Lee's army.

Implications

The Union army experienced nearly 18,000 casualties in the Wilderness, almost twice as many as Lee’s army. But Grant’s troops were not dispirited. Previous Union commanders, Hooker and Burnside, had chosen to retreat after sustaining significant losses in battles against Lee. Therefore, the continued advancement of Union troops brought a sense of jubilation among the Federal forces.

Who won the battle? This question is essentially unanswerable. Neither side left the battlefield in retreat. Both armies had a very high rate of casualties in just 48 hours (Union 15.0% with 17,666 (2,246 killed) of 118,00 engaged; Confederate 16.7% with 11,033 (1,477 killed) of 66,140 engaged). Tactically, it was probably a draw. Strategically, Grant was able to advance, but Lee had prevented him from reaching Richmond. Indecisive is probably the best descriptor.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further Reading

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/wilderness

·       Gordon C Rhea, The Battle of the Wilderness, May 5-6, 1864. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 2004.

·       John B Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904.

·       Stecker, RM BlachleyJD. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(3):353-359.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/404442

·       Steere  E The Wilderness Campaign.  Mechanicsburg, Pa Stackpole Books1960;

·       Longstreet  J From Manassas to Appomattox. 2nd ed. New York, NY Da Capo Press Inc, 1992.

·       Sorrel  GM Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer.  New York, NY Konecky & Konecky, 1994.

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/lee-rear